Disposed

Harish S/O Gangaram Agrawal v. the Director General of Civil Aviation and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2018PIL/30/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL concerning engine failures in A320 Neo aircraft. The court recorded assurances from airlines and DGCA and directed the latter to maintain strict vigil, independently assess airworthiness considering Indian conditions, and communicate passengers during incidents.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Union of India and DGCA to take precautions, maintain strict vigil, independently assess airworthiness considering Indian weather conditions, and communicate with passengers regarding any i

Harish S/O Gangaram Agrawal Vs the Director General of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

901-pil-l-29-18

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION LODGING NO. 29 OF 2018

¶5

Harish S/o Gangaram Agrawal

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Director General of Civil Aviation & ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Ms. Savita Nangare a/w Ali Kazmi, Jasmeeth Kaur i/by Atham Legal for petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Anil C. Singh, ASG a/w Mr. Advait M. Sethana with Mr. A.R. Singh and Ms. Indrayani Deshmukh i/by Ashwini Singh for respondent Nos.1 and 4 – UOI.

¶11

Mr. Rohan Kelkar a/w Rajesh Talekar for respondent No.2.

¶12

Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shilpi Jain, Mr. Sahil Kanuga & Ms. Kshama Loya i/by Nishith Desai Associates for respondent No.3.

¶13

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶14

JUNE 12, 2018.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

This Public Interest Litigation was filed in respect of repeated

¶17

engine failures of the Aircrafts fitted with engine A320 Neo operated by respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. These engines were manufactured by Pratt and

¶18

Whitney, an American Company. The respondents appear in the PIL and

¶19

filed their replies. The PIL was heard from time to time. Serious concerns

¶20

¶21

901-pil-l-29-18

¶22

were expressed by the petitioner as some Aircrafts of the respondentAirline were grounded as engines developed technical snags. It is reported that as of now three Aircrafts are grounded.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Airlines submit that they would take all the necessary precautions regarding airworthiness of their Aircrafts and the engines more particularly A320 Neo with PW 1100. It is submitted that necessary certificates have been obtained for operating these Aircrafts. The respondents-Airlines assures that the safety of the passengers shall not be compromised at any cost.

¶24

The learned ASG Mr. Anil Singh appearing for Union of India and DGCA, on instructions, submits that as a responsible authority, the DCGA has been monitoring the airworthiness of these Aircrafts. On instructions of the DGCA, some Aircrafts were grounded. The DGCA assures this court that no compromise shall be made on the safety aspects of the passengers.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the PIL be disposed of at this stage with liberty to reopen the issues as and

¶26

¶27

901-pil-l-29-18

¶28

when cause of action for the same arises.

¶29

We have considered the submissions advanced. We have recorded the assurances given by the respondents-Airlines through the respective counsel.

¶30

We direct the Union of India and DGCA to take all the necessary precautions for maintaining strict vigil on the Aircrafts operating with these engines or any other engines. The DGCA would independently assess airworthiness of the engines / Aircrafts of the Airlines operating in India looking into the Indian weather conditions. The DGCA shall communicate people at large in case of any such instances taking place so that a situation of confusion and fear is avoided. Confidence building exercise amongst the passengers is necessary.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the PIL stands disposed of with liberty as prayed for.

¶32

(G. S. KULKARNI J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

Harish S/O Gangaram Agrawal v. the Director General of Civil Aviation and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish S/O Gangaram Agrawal v. the Director General of Civil Aviation and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khurshed Soli Dhondy Vs Her Royal Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Kingdom of the Neatherlands and Ors.

Mr. Ganpat Jotiba Karade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Love Ramsingh Chavhan, Yavatmal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Sub Division Officer, Yavatmal and Others.

Rahul S/O Adhikaranji Saoji and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai and Others

Elgar Pratishthan, through Its Secretary, Kalyan Kumar ,Chandrapur and Others Vs the Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi

Meghraj Pundlik Dongare Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Mour Marbles Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Motilal Laxmichand Salecha HUF and 2 Ors.

Omprakash Changoiwala and Anr. Vs Vishal Usha Kejriwal

Aarti Pandey Ahir Vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. and Another

Uma Vithal Jhaveri and Anr. Vs Nikhil Vithal Jhaveri

Nilam Patel Vs Hemalata Chimanbhai Patel and 5 Ors.

Dlb Nand Gaurav Vs Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd. and Anr.